"We hold these truths to be self evident," states the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is one of many proclamations made at the time of the forming of this nation that bring into debate the intermingling of religion and politics in our culture. The first paragraph of the Declaration that leads up to this claim of unalienable rights demonstrates a general faith amongst the founders that people are called, as it reads: "to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The founders claimed their right to freedom from tyranny and freedom to self govern from an authority and power that was larger than themselves, and, certainly, larger than the King.
Rev. Church points out in his book, The American Creed, that Jefferson described the Declaration of Independence as "an expression of the American mind", and, on another occasion, as "the genuine effusion of the soul of our country." [1]
Whether we like it or not, this nation was founded on faith, a belief in a Creator or Source of all Being whose presence in our lives brings us to the knowledge of freedom and responsibility, of liberty and justice for all ... that we, endowed with this knowledge can form a more perfect union. This same Divine inspiration, however, also guards against abuses and distortions of power, so that freedom is preserved for all. The tyrannies of the mind and possessiveness of spirit that our forebears witnessed in their lives primarily through religious zeal and political power were intentionally guarded against in the framing of this nation through the Bill of Rights. The founders agreed that having faith gives courage and inspires perseverence toward an ideal, but forcing faith on others disables any effort toward liberty and justice for all.
So religious liberty is both freedom from religious coercion and freedom for religious expression. There must be enough room for your religion, my religion or no religion and the government which touches us all must favor none of them. Not easy stuff ... but this Republic isn't easy.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend Benjamin Rush, a Universalist and co-signer of the Declaration, "I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Jefferson's allegiance to his God and hostility toward tyranny speak to the delicate balance of politics and religion in this nation's development. The tension of religion and politics energizes the soul of this nation, because it is only in the true balance of cherished affirmation of life and resistance to tyranny that freedom lives. And further, freedom exists for us only if we tend to it, only if we contribute to its life amongst us. It is up to us to pay attention to that which prevents the flow of freedom in our lives. It is up to us to pay attention to abuses of power and influence—up to us to defy belittling assumptions of another's worth and identity—up to us to question coercive claims of ownership and belonging.
No one owns your soul, no one owns the soul of this nation. That is its genius. But that's also its vulnerability, for if we don't tend to the soul of this nation it can be coopted. When we enter into this ideal of liberty for all, we all must monitor its health. And it begins by being clear about our rights and responsibilities.
The Declaration of Independence is the first and only known document to this day that proclaims a government founded on principles: not for the sake of land or of royality or of any particular religion, but for the sake of principles. These principles were derived from a devotion to the ideals of natural law.
Now the assumption of Natural Law came from the belief in an ultimate unifying reality, over and above the workings of humanity. It was a belief in an Ultimate Source, an Originator of all things, an organizing principle of life itself that can be described through many different religious systems. It was further believed that humans, through the use of reason, could come to the wisdom of this unifying principle and create a peaceable realm, one that would assure all its members justice and equity. Each citizen, it was believed, is endowed with this unifying principle that can empower the individual to develop into a mature, exemplary citizen. However, it was equally believed, that humans have a tendencies to stray from their best selves, that in fact we are prone to distortions, greed, fear, pride and self delusion. And organized religion has a tendency to tempt its followers to stray from the ideal of liberty and justice for all.
Kenneth D. Wald writes in his book Religion and Politics in the United States "for some of the founders, notably Thomas Jefferson and John Adams [John Adams was a Unitarian] organized religion deserved no government support because among other reasons, it was thought to pervert the true meaning of religion ... [they] agreed that true religion consisted of benevolent conduct toward one's fellow human beings. They outdid one another in denouncing the "irrelevance" and "superstition" of dogma that obscured the simplicity and beauty of religion's moral content." [2]
The question of morality as a sign of good citizenry is in our public dialogue today, with the media milking the drama of the national elections with a dubious poll that specifically targeted "moral values." What is disturbing in this trend is that "moral values" are being used as weapons to divide and conquer, to overtake process and undervalue dialogue. This is because people are using their religion as authority not only in their own choices but to justify coercion of another's rights and responsibilities. It is also creating a tunnel vision, where people make choices for their lives and the country out of single issues that dwarf all other considerations. The tunnel vision is justified by dogma, shaped to limit the free mind and demonize doubt.
What the framers guarded against in their vision is coming to pass in our lives, bit by bit, as the wall of separation between church and state that was emphasized to promote dignity, equity and responsible citizenry is being chiseled away.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day prominently placed on a vehicle, "You cannot be a Catholic and pro-abortion." Before anyone here assumes that is the way others behave, I've heard Unitarian Universalists declare you cannot be a true UU if you were not pro-choice. What's wrong with both of these dogmatic statements is that others are deciding your faith for you. Others are attempting to define your worthiness through their agenda. In both cases the denominations have a clear opinion on the right to choose, but that does not mean dialogue and difference should be eliminated, mocked or exiled.
Name calling and labeling are the order of the day. You need only listen to talk radio for ten minutes before some witty put down or mean spirited innuendo encourages its listeners to takes sides and shut out those who disagree. If you doubt, if you feel nuance, if you change your mind or admit a mistake, you are seen as a less worthy American and therefore dismissed by some label that marks you.
This kind of discourse creates both a dangerous arrogance and demonic fear. People are seen as not to be trusted, issues cannot come up without great risk of relationship. If a certain phrase or choice signals enemy territory to a person, then no amount of reasoning can work to welcome dialogue. The person feels the other has nothing to teach, the other, in fact, is what's wrong with society; the other needs to be disempowered or at least wounded.
Delegate Donald H. Dwyer, Jr. of Anne Arundel County articulated this in his comments against marriage equality. Saying that he was appalled that marriage equality is being presented as a civil rights issue, he commented "they are going to regret it just as they are going to regret bringing this battle to Maryland ... they are going to be black and blue from this battle." [3]
We all have agendas, personal needs and priorities. We all have our fears, our demons and our projections. We all label now and again and dismiss the other. What is dangerous is when we begin to believe our own labels as truth, the unalienable kind, and we worship our righteousness from that stance of truth, from that dogma. What is equally damaging is when we let others do that for us, when we allow the labels to stick because we do not claim ourselves.
The other day a colleague said to me that his trouble with "liberals" is the philosophy that anything goes and that there is no discernment. When did "liberals" become hedonists? When did "liberals" lose the edge of liberty in people's minds? When did the name calling overpower the claim of freedom, the discipline of acceptance, the loyalty to equity and justice? Liberals have boundaries, how did that get lost in the shuffle?
This same colleague, who I feel blessed to be in dialogue with, bemoans the definition of Christian that is being coopted by an extremist hate-filled agenda that is far away from his ministry and sense of calling. How did we allow for such a demeaning characterization of a world religion that has moved millions to extraordinary acts of love?
When we put people in little boxes, we've stopped really seeing them. When we think we know what's best for another, we have blocked ourselves from understanding. We then want our neighbor to be what we assume they "should be." Then the spiral of misunderstanding begins and words pile on words till they become barriers. Once that barricade of rigid expectation is formed, we have artificially created enemy territory. And when we throw the will of God into the mix or a complete dismissal of any religious sensibility, then our potential to authentically dwell with one another is lost and the potential to do damage increases.
To truly dwell in a community centered on the principle of freedom, we would spend far more time fighting the enemy within, the distortions of our own mind and spirit, rather than correcting others. We would work on our own wisdom, rather than claim the ignorance of others. The trick is everyone, or at least a vast majority of the people have to be doing this, else abuses reign unchecked.
Advanced citizenry is rare. We do not often find those who claim liberty for themselves just as passionately as they do for others. It is not often that one readily makes decisions for one's own life while considering the good of all. We tend to be possessive and judgmental. We tend to want easy answers and ways to control the world as we see it. We are prone to coercion and self interest. We tend to see scarcity of resources that need to be gained competitively, protected and preserved, rather than come to realize an abundance of life that can be shared so that all may dwell in peace.
Government was also envisioned as a force to uphold public good, to prevent us all from sabotaging the ideal. Our government was crafted to serve its citizenry, not master it, and to function by rule of law and not by the whim of particular individuals or religious systems. In the best of all possible worlds, civil law would both steer us away from our baser tendencies and protect us from absolute, arbitrary power. In this way our nation's forebears were concerned with breaking the pattern of tyranny by honoring the potential of humankind.
It was Jefferson who coined the phrase a "wall of separation" between church and state in an 1802 letter to a congregation of Connecticut Baptists. This phrase does not appear in the Constitution. The spirit of the first amendment was the belief that one's religious sensibility could create good citizens who would find their best selves and practice good works, but it was also deeply believed that no government should favor nor coerce a specific religion upon its citizenry.
Leonard E. Reed writes in his essay, Government: An Ideal Concept, "It is well to emphasize the idea that every living human being, if he or she would correctly interpret his or her own welfare, has a vested interest in the creative emergence of every other human being; that each person has a vested interest in the free, uninhibited flowing and exchange of the energies thus released; that the true interests of all, therefore, are in harmony.... Liberty can be defined," he continues, "as one freeing oneself from one's own negations and not playing God, either individually or collectively, through government or otherwise." [4]
The increase of religious language in political discourse is dangerously courting "playing God." Imaging oneself as "on God's side" is too close for comfort. Remember Pat Buchanan's speech in 1992: "We are in a war," he said, "for the soul of the American people." [5]
The slow and steady crumbling of the wall of separation between church and state is occurring in tax dollars used to fund religious activities under the guise of "faith based initiatives," school vouchers presented to offer choice, though given for some schools that will not accept you unless you profess a certain faith, the constant pressure for organized prayer in schools, especially at special assemblies and graduation ceremonies, creationism taught in school, and in some cases blocking the instruction of evolution, anti-drug school assemblies that include conversion stories for Christ as basis for hope in recovery, tax supported sex education programs which teach abstinence through the moral example of the Virgin Mary. Clergy preaching from the pulpit to vote for certain candidates in order to serve God. More and more court cases around religious coercion are challenging the framer's structure. If it hasn't yet affected you, it will.
Most of these issues are supported by well meaning people who see immediate worth of the program for their context without realizing how it damages religious freedom for all people. And if one freedom is compromised, then all freedoms are threatened.
What is needed is a reworking of civic responsibility; understanding that this nation is made up of people who are responsible toward each other ... people who must tend to their freedoms by protecting all rights.
What is needed is a reclaiming of our essential worth and wisdom toward creating a world that thrives on justice and peace.
What is needed is a recalling of who we are and what we believe, not have it defined by someone else or dismissed by a shallow label.
What is needed is a reaching toward the ideal of liberty, embracing the other while making sure there is room for ourselves.
What is needed is the hope we are capable of and the determination we were born with to praise this life and our being in it.
So may it be. Amen.
Words by W. E. B. DuBois
The prayer of our souls is a petition for persistence; not for the one good deed, or single thought, but deed on deed, and thought on thought, until day calling unto day shall make a life worth living.